These acounts are all newly created SPAs that have shown the same nationalistic urge or predisposition of embroidering relatively lesser known or outright obscure India-Pakistan war articles with claims of Pakistani military victory, whether that being the case or not. Edits of the same type have in fact been made on articles created and contributed by these suspected socks.
These nationalistic edits across a small set of obscure articles, even created by themselves, exuding a fatuous desire of highlighting imagined Pakistani victories and thier wacky quibbles with expressed ideas of Indian victory point to a handiwork of a juvenile mind. And all of these socks capitalize "Pakistani Victory" (as above diffs show) even though we do not capitalize the second word in English. Requesting a CU to unmask them for us. Regards, MBlaze Lightning ( talk) 19:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I've added VirtualVagabond in the list of the probable sock accounts. #12-14 enumerate the evidence suggesting strongly that he is another of these newly created but sophistically editing sock. Would appreciate if this is looked into at the earliest. Regards, MBlaze Lightning ( talk) 18:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
North Rajasthan, which was a Pakistani victoryarticle" on Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 while MrGreen1163 complained about "
Rajasthan Front (Pakistani victory) was deleted". [36]
I have also added 2400:adc1:400::/40 because this range is clearly being abused by this sockfarm.
I’m not sure why I’m involved in this, as it seems every account here is relatively new and made like 2-3 months ago, and have been editing in unison with each other. But as per your claims of some of these accounts editing in articles that I've edited, lets see. For the Tanai Incident, I didn’t even radically change the result to a Pakistani victory, it stated a Pakistani victory before I even touched the page. I just changed the grammar from "Pakistan Army victory” to “Pakistani victory", I don’t see the nationalistic bias there when it stated a result in favor of Pakistan that I didn’t even challenge just fixed the grammar of. Next you brought up the Battle of Hussainiwala, stating me and another user argued for a Pakistani victory. The user who challenged this result, Aman Kumar Goel (I believe thats his name), stated that the sources provided didn’t explicitly mention the word "victory" when stating Pakistan achieved its objectives in capturing the village. I then provided an explicit mention of the word victory in a source, in which he called it unreliable. I didn’t want to edit war so I just left it as that, since Pakistan’s capture of Hussainiwala was still mentioned in the result. I invite you to read the article if you challenge that. Those are the two articles you brought up that me and these suspected users edited in. Now as for these being "sockpuppets" for me to promote nationalistic bias, these were created like 3 months ago. I didn’t even started editing Wikipedia a lot until about 1 month ago. 3 months ago and before that I was only reading Wikipedia. These accounts also started editing off the bat, I didn’t. Why would I start editing a lot on alternate accounts instead of my own? Another note to add, I believe that Wikipedia Administrators can view IP addresses (I may be wrong), and if they do, they will probably see that my IP address is vastly different from these other accounts. Now with the unison in editing and the fact these accounts are new, they probably are connected due to their incredibly similar edits. I would investigate if these are linked to one single account or possibly a banned account. But you can verify our IP addresses to find I don’t have relations to these. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGreen1163 ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
These acounts are all newly created SPAs that have shown the same nationalistic urge or predisposition of embroidering relatively lesser known or outright obscure India-Pakistan war articles with claims of Pakistani military victory, whether that being the case or not. Edits of the same type have in fact been made on articles created and contributed by these suspected socks.
These nationalistic edits across a small set of obscure articles, even created by themselves, exuding a fatuous desire of highlighting imagined Pakistani victories and thier wacky quibbles with expressed ideas of Indian victory point to a handiwork of a juvenile mind. And all of these socks capitalize "Pakistani Victory" (as above diffs show) even though we do not capitalize the second word in English. Requesting a CU to unmask them for us. Regards, MBlaze Lightning ( talk) 19:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I've added VirtualVagabond in the list of the probable sock accounts. #12-14 enumerate the evidence suggesting strongly that he is another of these newly created but sophistically editing sock. Would appreciate if this is looked into at the earliest. Regards, MBlaze Lightning ( talk) 18:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
North Rajasthan, which was a Pakistani victoryarticle" on Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 while MrGreen1163 complained about "
Rajasthan Front (Pakistani victory) was deleted". [36]
I have also added 2400:adc1:400::/40 because this range is clearly being abused by this sockfarm.
I’m not sure why I’m involved in this, as it seems every account here is relatively new and made like 2-3 months ago, and have been editing in unison with each other. But as per your claims of some of these accounts editing in articles that I've edited, lets see. For the Tanai Incident, I didn’t even radically change the result to a Pakistani victory, it stated a Pakistani victory before I even touched the page. I just changed the grammar from "Pakistan Army victory” to “Pakistani victory", I don’t see the nationalistic bias there when it stated a result in favor of Pakistan that I didn’t even challenge just fixed the grammar of. Next you brought up the Battle of Hussainiwala, stating me and another user argued for a Pakistani victory. The user who challenged this result, Aman Kumar Goel (I believe thats his name), stated that the sources provided didn’t explicitly mention the word "victory" when stating Pakistan achieved its objectives in capturing the village. I then provided an explicit mention of the word victory in a source, in which he called it unreliable. I didn’t want to edit war so I just left it as that, since Pakistan’s capture of Hussainiwala was still mentioned in the result. I invite you to read the article if you challenge that. Those are the two articles you brought up that me and these suspected users edited in. Now as for these being "sockpuppets" for me to promote nationalistic bias, these were created like 3 months ago. I didn’t even started editing Wikipedia a lot until about 1 month ago. 3 months ago and before that I was only reading Wikipedia. These accounts also started editing off the bat, I didn’t. Why would I start editing a lot on alternate accounts instead of my own? Another note to add, I believe that Wikipedia Administrators can view IP addresses (I may be wrong), and if they do, they will probably see that my IP address is vastly different from these other accounts. Now with the unison in editing and the fact these accounts are new, they probably are connected due to their incredibly similar edits. I would investigate if these are linked to one single account or possibly a banned account. But you can verify our IP addresses to find I don’t have relations to these. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGreen1163 ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)